Talk:Taipei 101/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
On hold for 7 days. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The cleanup tag is valid. This article reads like an advertisement. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fails WP:WTW. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	A number of dead links exist, according to the WP:CHECKLINKS tool. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I see many sources with questionable reliability. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Many statements are unsourced. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Major aspects are missing. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In my opinion, this article has too much WP:CRUFT. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article is written like an advertisement. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Nothing problematic. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images from Commons. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Way too many images. sst ✈ 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.

@SSTflyer: Thank you for your review. Are there any specific examples that need fixing? I'll look it over myself, but it may take a few days. Epic Genius (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I think, in its current state, the article would need substantial rewriting or even TNTing for this to return to GA standard. sst ✈ 05:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on finding sources. If it needs to be blown up and restarted from scratch, I could do it, but it may take a couple of months. Epic Genius (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have done some cleanup with the article. You certainly do not have any obligation to improve this article; I am only asking if you may want to take a look at this article or potentially save this from delisting. Do you actually want to work on this article? If not, I will delist this article. sst ✈ 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. sst ✈ 08:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]